5 ms·

I'm glad there's growing pushback to these programs. Here in the US we tend to irrevocably lose a bit of independence and freedom in every crisis -- and it's o

I'm glad there's growing pushback to these programs. Here in the US we tend to irrevocably lose a bit of independence and freedom in every crisis -- and it's often lost forever. Wars tends to be the best fig leaf for eroding our civil liberties. Things like the Patriot Act get passed after 9/11 and are still with us today. The authorization for war given to Bush in 2001 is still active today, several presidents later, and has been used to kill and torture people in a whole host of countries. Figurative "wars" have resulted in erosion of rights - like the war on drugs - which gave us expanded civil asset forfeiture. Covid-19 has given the governors a pass to do anything they like with little to no oversight. Banning any gathering of people is totally fine apparently. It's also seemingly fine to only use it against gatherings that are opposed to your political objectives, while those that you support are given a pass. Banning the expression of one's religion is also ok. (In my state all places of worship were forced closed, no matter what precautions they took, but vape stores were deemed essential businesses. I'm an atheist but this even bothered me.) Maybe this is all perfect reasonable given the crisis -- but once these newfound powers are let out of the bag, we often find that they're hard to pull back.

jfoster 6y ago
Isn't the correct response to that ensuring rollback of the measures once the crisis has passed, rather than resisting commonsense measures during a crisis, though?
- burnthrow 6y ago
  Yes, exactly why there's a Bureau of Overreach Rollbacks.
- macinjosh 6y ago
  To my mind exchanging liberty for safety is never common sense.
  - a_t48 6y ago
    If you’re going to use words like “never”, are you fine with the right to punch whoever you like?
  - tzs 6y ago
    I'm having trouble thinking of any safety measure that does not involve giving up some liberty.
- ciarannolan 6y ago
  The nature of principles, like the ones enumerated in the US Constitution, is that they do not change with changing circumstances.
  - exegete 6y ago
    Like the 10th amendment? The 10th amendment seems to give a lot of leeway to States, assuming their respective Constitutions allow governors to take on emergency powers during a public health crisis which seems to be the case in most states.
    - ciarannolan 6y ago
      What about the 9 amendments before that one? Restricting religious practice or the right to assembly are not principles we should cede.
- m463 6y ago
  I have noticed in the last ~20 years (?) that some laws have had expiration dates. I'm uncertain if this is a good thing or a bad thing. On one hand it could try new things and revert them if they don't work, and prevent temporary necessities from lingering. On the other hand, it could also be used to pass truly terrible laws under the guise of impermanence.
nashalo_nighly 6y ago
These measures are common sense during a pandemic and should be limited in time. In many countries (at least France and UK) all these measures are bound in time and the time mandate is regularly renewed by parliament.
- teh_infallible 6y ago
  If locking everyone in their homes and pressuring them to wear surgical masks everywhere were “common sense,” they would be common practices already. They make no sense from a health perspective. The idea that healers should wield total power over the economy is similarly new.
  - bigiain 6y ago
    The people of Melbourne/Victoria in Australia would like a word... They went from a "second wave" of over 700 new cases a day, to just having hit 16 consecutive days of zero new cases - all due to lockdown restrictions and mask wearing. It was tough on people. But it worked. Looking at numbers like 160,000 new cases a day is horrifying. Death rates seem to be globally hovering right around 0.5% - that's a lot of dead people...
  - ephimetheus 6y ago
    What you’re claiming to make “no sense” is working right now in France and Germany, among others. Your convenience is not more important than other people’s lives.
gameswithgo 6y ago
I wonder what case fatality ratio / infectivity combo it would take for people with this take on liberty to agree that sometimes societies should give up liberty. I am not sure there is one, I feel like we have a death cult in charge of our country. I wonder how many are dead because you have to die on a mask/gathering hill? I feel like I shouldn’t have to explain it but when people take risks, like that large wedding that infected dozens of people, it later kills people who didn’t even attend. doesn’t personal freedom end when the effects aren’t personal?
- sokoloff 6y ago
  If we could ensure that restrictions would be no greater and no longer than reasonably proportional to the risk, I think people would be more willing to give the government temporary power beyond what the Constitution protects. Given that the government has such a terrible track record on giving up power and a decidedly mixed track record of delivery of promised/hoped for benefits, plenty of people could reasonably prefer to protect a century of liberty.
- mdifrgechd 6y ago
  Just because you believe that there is some benevolent authority that we can just "give up liberty" to an everything will be ok doesn't make it the only opinion, even if it's easier to think about. It's easy to see how if there is attention and power that comes with a big enough crisis, everything suddenly gets framed as such a crisis (see rights violations, climate crisis, war on drugs, bullying, etc.) So you better hope that whoever gets to exercise absolute power in the case of a crisis is on your side and shares your values. Those who trade liberty for security get neither as the saying goes. But I think the above is well understood, and I guess rejected by some, because I see so many positions that think giving away our freedom is ok. What we really need are stronger politicians who can unite people and find compromises between freedom and public health measures, that help us collectively move forward. This crisis has shown how weak politicians have become (and how horribly technocrats and corporates have been at filling that void). Leadership is not forcing people to do stuff, that only makes society more divided and undermines attempts to solve problems. We need leadership and we don't have it.
- 6y ago
Judgmentality 6y ago
> Things like the Patriot Act get passed after 9/11 and are still with us today. I just wanted to point out that some of the worst parts of the Patriot Act are no longer legal. Just this year many sections were not renewed, including parts specific to surveillance. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/04/yes-section-215-expired-now-what https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/04/yes-section-215-expire...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
A6gYPfxNas 6y ago
100% and most people don't even notice.

jfoster 6y ago

Isn't the correct response to that ensuring rollback of the measures once the crisis has passed, rather than resisting commonsense measures during a crisis, though?

burnthrow 6y ago
Yes, exactly why there's a Bureau of Overreach Rollbacks.
macinjosh 6y ago
To my mind exchanging liberty for safety is never common sense.
- a_t48 6y ago
  If you’re going to use words like “never”, are you fine with the right to punch whoever you like?
- tzs 6y ago
  I'm having trouble thinking of any safety measure that does not involve giving up some liberty.
ciarannolan 6y ago
The nature of principles, like the ones enumerated in the US Constitution, is that they do not change with changing circumstances.
- exegete 6y ago
  Like the 10th amendment? The 10th amendment seems to give a lot of leeway to States, assuming their respective Constitutions allow governors to take on emergency powers during a public health crisis which seems to be the case in most states.
  - ciarannolan 6y ago
    What about the 9 amendments before that one? Restricting religious practice or the right to assembly are not principles we should cede.
m463 6y ago
I have noticed in the last ~20 years (?) that some laws have had expiration dates. I'm uncertain if this is a good thing or a bad thing. On one hand it could try new things and revert them if they don't work, and prevent temporary necessities from lingering. On the other hand, it could also be used to pass truly terrible laws under the guise of impermanence.

nashalo_nighly 6y ago

These measures are common sense during a pandemic and should be limited in time. In many countries (at least France and UK) all these measures are bound in time and the time mandate is regularly renewed by parliament.

teh_infallible 6y ago
If locking everyone in their homes and pressuring them to wear surgical masks everywhere were “common sense,” they would be common practices already. They make no sense from a health perspective. The idea that healers should wield total power over the economy is similarly new.
- bigiain 6y ago
  The people of Melbourne/Victoria in Australia would like a word... They went from a "second wave" of over 700 new cases a day, to just having hit 16 consecutive days of zero new cases - all due to lockdown restrictions and mask wearing. It was tough on people. But it worked. Looking at numbers like 160,000 new cases a day is horrifying. Death rates seem to be globally hovering right around 0.5% - that's a lot of dead people...
- ephimetheus 6y ago
  What you’re claiming to make “no sense” is working right now in France and Germany, among others. Your convenience is not more important than other people’s lives.

gameswithgo 6y ago

I wonder what case fatality ratio / infectivity combo it would take for people with this take on liberty to agree that sometimes societies should give up liberty. I am not sure there is one, I feel like we have a death cult in charge of our country. I wonder how many are dead because you have to die on a mask/gathering hill? I feel like I shouldn’t have to explain it but when people take risks, like that large wedding that infected dozens of people, it later kills people who didn’t even attend. doesn’t personal freedom end when the effects aren’t personal?

sokoloff 6y ago
If we could ensure that restrictions would be no greater and no longer than reasonably proportional to the risk, I think people would be more willing to give the government temporary power beyond what the Constitution protects. Given that the government has such a terrible track record on giving up power and a decidedly mixed track record of delivery of promised/hoped for benefits, plenty of people could reasonably prefer to protect a century of liberty.
mdifrgechd 6y ago
Just because you believe that there is some benevolent authority that we can just "give up liberty" to an everything will be ok doesn't make it the only opinion, even if it's easier to think about. It's easy to see how if there is attention and power that comes with a big enough crisis, everything suddenly gets framed as such a crisis (see rights violations, climate crisis, war on drugs, bullying, etc.) So you better hope that whoever gets to exercise absolute power in the case of a crisis is on your side and shares your values. Those who trade liberty for security get neither as the saying goes. But I think the above is well understood, and I guess rejected by some, because I see so many positions that think giving away our freedom is ok. What we really need are stronger politicians who can unite people and find compromises between freedom and public health measures, that help us collectively move forward. This crisis has shown how weak politicians have become (and how horribly technocrats and corporates have been at filling that void). Leadership is not forcing people to do stuff, that only makes society more divided and undermines attempts to solve problems. We need leadership and we don't have it.
6y ago

Judgmentality 6y ago

> Things like the Patriot Act get passed after 9/11 and are still with us today. I just wanted to point out that some of the worst parts of the Patriot Act are no longer legal. Just this year many sections were not renewed, including parts specific to surveillance. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/04/yes-section-215-expired-now-what https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/04/yes-section-215-expire...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

A6gYPfxNas 6y ago

100% and most people don't even notice.